installing freebsd on windows
gesbbb at yahoo.com
Sat Mar 28 05:39:49 PDT 2009
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:45:33 +0000
Frank Shute <frank at shute.org.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:31:31AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:50:40 +0000
>> Frank Shute <frank at shute.org.uk> wrote:
>> >On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 01:03:59AM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> >> >It's certainly not slow and messy here. I installed PCBSD a
>> >> >couple of months ago after a few years of rolling my own desktop
>> >> >and I love it. On reasonable spec hardware it runs very well, the
>> >> >developers have done an excellent job
>> >> of course. windows vista runs well too on overmuscled hardware.
A system can never be over powered.
>> >No it doesn't. It doesn't run well on any hardware because it's got
>> >things like a file manager that is broken for all intents and
>> >purposes. No virtual desktops, undocumented shell etc.
>> Actually, it supports at least four that I know of. You can Google
>> for the information.
>Four of what?
Virtual desktops. What are you referring to? Visit the power toys URL
for further information.
>Why do I have to Google the info? Shouldn't there be a copy of the
Not necessarily. Many people don't want to clutter up their system with
documentation that they will never use. I certainly don't. If I
actually need an obscure bit of information, I can always obtain it.
>I can google for unbroken filemanagers, documented shells, install
>cygwin etc. but the software as it stands is horribly inadequate and
In your opinion. I never have a problem finding what I am looking for.
>> MS Windows is probably the best documented piece of software around.
>Are you being sarcastic?
>Where's the Handbook like FreeBSDs?
Are you being sarcastic?
>You can read the source can you? I can't.
If you are referring to the source code; well that is obvious. If
something else, then what? People get paid to develop the software. If
they gave it away, they would not make a living, the unemployment lines
would swell, and crime would increase. Now, if you don't believe in a
capitalistic system of free enterprise, please come over and paint my
house this weekend. I promise not to insult you by offering to pay you.
>Maybe I'm just getting old but Vista documentation seems to be
>scattered to hell and west over the 'net - if you can find what you're
>looking for at all.
Yes, it is fragmented. The simple fact that there is so much information
is the cause, not the problem.
>> What is it you are looking for?
>Where are the documents for using their crappy filemanager? There are
>some with what they call, exaggeratingly, their help system but they
>are useless compared to any unix documentation. Probably there are a
>limited number of ways you can describe such an excrescance as the
>Vista Explorer replacement.
>Where are the manpages for their shell? They should at least have some
>documentation that comes with the OS that lists and describes the
>commands it supports. It doesn't.
Did you actually install the 'Power Shell?' I assume that is what you
are talking about. Read the 'Getting Started" pages. I just installed
it and there is a wealth of information there. Certainly enough to get
BTW, many people consider 'man' to be an acronym for "Much About
Nothing". Therein lies the reason that O'Reilly has make a fortune
distributing 'How-To' books.
>I'm looking for an OS with a sane file hierarchy and a shell I can use
>to manage the files therein. An editor better than Notepad would be a
Wrong, you are looking for a specific OS that is tailored to your very
specific specification. Everyone does not (thank GOD) have the same
criteria. If it suits you, then great. If not, find one that does.
Bitching like an old wash woman accomplishes nothing.
>Extensive documentation on the machine is a must.
Then install it. Everyone does not want massive amounts of useless
>I've searched on google for documentation on the powershell to no
>avail. All the docs as such seem to be available if you are a member
>of MSDN - I presume so anyway, but for the general public they don't
>seem to be readily available.
Obviously, you have not installed the shell. Besides the info included
with the program, you might want to check out the following URL. It
should answer most of your immediate questions. I also question you
'search' ability. I don't seem to be having any problem finding
gratuitous amounts of documentation.
>In short, I gave Vista a decent shot (I quite like XP) but it was like
>wading through treacle and I thought that if I am to get the best out
>of it, I'm probably going to have to sign up for MSDN and download
>vast amounts of "missing" software and spend inordinate amounts of
>time on google.
Yes, it is commonly referred to as a 'learning curve' Personally,
anyone who cannot handle a Win32 machine has serous problems. Six year
old kids gleefully manipulate a PC without problems. I know several 7 &
8 year old kids running MS Office without any difficulty at all. It all
depends on how motivated you are.
Conversely, I know many individuals who just plain gave up tying to run
a *.nix system because they could not get a device to work, or locate a
driver, or find a support mechanism that was suitable for them
purposes. Things like FLASH have always been problematic on FreeBSD.
>The cost and time benefits didn't seem worth it since I'm quite happy
>with FreeBSD and there's only one Windows only application that I use:
>AutoCAD; for that I maintain an XP installation.
If you are happy with something, then why bitch. You sound like an old
In any case, you are comparing apples to oranges. Windows and *.nix are
two different systems that take vastly different approaches to the same
problem. Windows attempts to be usable by the largest number of users
without a long, arduous learning curve. For the most part, they have
succeeded. I have yet to see a seven year old install a *.nix system
from scratch, install the applications he wants and have it up and
running without outside assistance.
The bottom line is something I saved from a posting I noticed a while
back comparing *.nix with MS Windows:
Here is a great example. FreeBSD 6 has a terrible implementation of the
SMB TCP stack that produces the WORST gb NIC performance on SMB/CIFS
sharing of any platform available. But you don't see a dozen threads
basking in the glory that Win32 (or Linux) outperforms FreeBSD 6 in
this capacity. You see people looking for answers.
If Microsoft develops a flawed protocol, stack, or subsystem, the Linux
guys are all over it like an angry mob ready for a lynching.
>Staying on topic, my advice to the original poster is to dump Windows
>and use FreeBSD - it's better documented and you can either use WINE
>to run your "must have" Windows programs or have a separate Windows
>partition. With a bit of luck your Windows "must haves" will eventually
>have unix replacements.
gesbbb at yahoo.com
Heller's Law: The first myth of management is that it exists.
Johnson's Corollary: Nobody really knows what is going on anywhere
within the organization.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20090328/73945743/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions